| Project/Area Number |
18K01402
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Review Section |
Basic Section 05070:New fields of law-related
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Kindai University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2018-04-01 – 2021-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2020)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,340,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥540,000)
Fiscal Year 2020: ¥650,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥150,000)
Fiscal Year 2019: ¥780,000 (Direct Cost: ¥600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥180,000)
Fiscal Year 2018: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 出生前治療 / 胎児 / 私権の享有 / 権利能力 / 権利主体 / 出生前（胎児）治療 / 出生前診断 / 胎児治療 / 代理 / 民法 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
The purpose of this study is to uncover whether there is the possibility of a fetus is granted private rights, where a fetus has received prenatal treatments in or out of the mother's body. I engaged in my study by the method of comparative study with common law in UK and USA. I have revealed the new facts that this issue was discussed in connection with abortion in USA, and this issue was discussed in connection with public policy and human rights in UK. And, I have focused on a heading of a provision of Article 3(1) of Japanese Code Civil - It was "Enjoyment of Private Rights" at the time of enactment, but was amended to "Capacity to Hold Rights" in 2006, in order to test the possibility of a fetus is granted private rights. I have pointed out that there was a misreading of a provision of Article 3(1) of Japanese Civil Code in the most of academic theories and judicial precedents. I have pointed out that the reason of misreading was due to the theory of natural human rights.
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
本研究が目的とした胎児の私法上の権利主体性の肯定可能性及びその法的構成の検討は、出生により人の私法上の権利主体性を肯定する民法3条1項の解釈に疑問を提起した。医療技術の進歩は疾患をもつ胎児に母胎内又は母体外で出生前治療を受ける機会を生じさせたが、本条項の従来の解釈に従えば、胎児の私法上の権利主体性は、母胎内で治療を受けた胎児は否定されるが、母体外で治療を受けた後母胎内に戻された胎児には肯定される余地をもたらした。本研究の学術的・社会的意義は、いずれの治療方針をとっても胎児の権利主体性に差異を設けるべきではないから、大半昭和7年10月6日判決の立場には問題が含まれることを明らかにしたことにある。
|
